Automatic transfer of execution to the debt tribunal makes later court sale void, and delay can be condoned on jurisdictional challenge.

Proceedings pending before civil courts, including execution against mortgaged property, stand automatically transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. A court receiver's sale after the Tribunal's constitution was therefore without jurisdiction, and the sale, its confirmation, and the sale certificate were treated as void ab initio; lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waiver. The Limitation Act applies to Tribunal proceedings by virtue of Section 24, so delay in filing a miscellaneous application could be condoned under Section 5 where the challenge raised a root question of jurisdiction. The rejection of the application on limitation was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the execution proceedings and sale of the mortgaged property after the constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal stood automatically transferred to the Tribunal and the Court Receiver's action in selling the property was without jurisdiction and void; (ii) whether the delay in filing the respondent's miscellaneous application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was liable to be condoned and the application could not be rejected on limitation.

Issue (i): whether the execution proceedings and sale of the mortgaged property after the constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal stood automatically transferred to the Tribunal and the Court Receiver's action in selling the property was without jurisdiction and void.

Analysis: Proceedings pending before civil courts and execution proceedings are transferred automatically to the Tribunal under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Once the Tribunal had come into existence, the High Court could not permit the Court Receiver to continue with execution by selling the mortgaged property in public auction. A decree or execution undertaken by a forum lacking jurisdiction is a nullity, and such defect cannot be cured by consent or waiver. The sale, confirmation of sale, and issuance of the sale certificate were therefore treated as suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The sale proceedings were without jurisdiction and void ab initio, and the respondent succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the delay in filing the respondent's miscellaneous application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was liable to be condoned and the application could not be rejected on limitation.

Analysis: The Limitation Act applies to proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by virtue of Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was available. In the facts, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal failed to examine the effect of the alleged want of jurisdiction in the earlier sale proceedings, which went to the root of the matter. The High Court was justified in setting aside the orders rejecting condonation and restoring the matter for fresh decision on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned, and rejection of the miscellaneous application on limitation was unsustainable, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the High Court correctly held that the sale proceedings were void for want of jurisdiction and that the respondent's challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal deserved reconsideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding or execution taken by a forum after statutory transfer of jurisdiction is a nullity, and such want of jurisdiction is not cured by consent, while delay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal may be condoned under the Limitation Act where the challenge goes to the root of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

---